User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Old stuff cleared out.)

Wikicities.com | My Website

Wikipedia 3D Sitemap

Hey Jimbo, met you in Dresden on June 3rd and you seemed to be interested in Kolossuss' project of a 3D sitemap of Wikipedia. Here is a link to check out: 3D Sitemap

I award you this award...

File:Order Orla Bialego2.jpg

Order of the White Eagle (badge)

For your massive contribution to society in the form of Wikipedia.

To Heaven, and back.

Hi Jimbo; I´ve observed that most articles grow to a mature version and then become almost "finished" versions, with very few edits afterwards. But articles that inspire emotional reactions keep being edited with no care. Try Hinduism, for instance. It is way below its past glory. It wouldn´t deserve a Featured nomination today. Is it a problem that has caught your (and the rest of the community's) attention? Subramanian ^talk 17:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A light of hope

Yes I know it sound some silly but is what find the wikipedia site makes me feel. Why? Because recently I start to belive that the internet only good for see porn pages. (What it sound pathetic for me) this site change my mind and also make me belive there are people whit something else than hormones. What a relief¡

A wiki killer proposal

I have made a highly unpopular proposal to close most non-functioning wikis. I think you'd like to know it. Please visit: m:Proposed policy for wiki closure. -- Toytoy 14:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's highly unpopular for a good reason... it's a pointless policy that serves no useful purpose and only antagonizes people whose languages happen not to have a well-developed wiki yet. Some of those "inactive" wikis may some day develop into larger, more popular ones, if you don't strangle this by killing them prematurely. *Dan* 22:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Laurent-Désiré Kabila

Just a courtesy note to say - I have edited your signed message at the top of Laurent-Désiré Kabila warning of advance fee fraud and so removed the attribution. I hope this is the right thing to do. — ciphergoth 16:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

World Community Grid

Hello, before you read on I would just like to say that I have so far only posted this to a limited amount of administrators for consultation. If you have any objections to its wider distribution or suitability for Wikipedia please let me know.'

Hi, I would just like to invite you to find out about the World Community Grid Human Proteome Folding Project. This is a purely philanthropic project and supported by a "blue chip" corporation in IBM. There is an ability to join a team once you have downloaded the software and another user has already established the Wikipedia team.

I would like to emphasise that I do not want to pressure anybody into feeling obligated and I understand the limited computer resources/access available to some. Feel free to pass this message on and thank you very much for your time, Mark83 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Significant objections have been raised to this. Mark83 10:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

Hello Mr. Wales. There is a discussion regarding the validity of Wikipedia's local copy of the GFDL here. Because it is in wiki formatting, it may be invalid. Please comment on this issue ASAP. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 22:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have addressed this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is still not identical. Compare [1] to [2]. The original on gnu.org is plain text, while the one here is in wiki formatting. Or does that not matter? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 23:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The license says a verbatim copy, meaning literally word-for-word. Differences in font selection, line length, spacing, and other formatting do not make a copy otherwise than verbatim, and the page as viewed by the user is now rendered with the same words as the GNU version (that is, the markup is removed). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, the text is verbatim now, but if I turn on "Auto-number headings" in the preferences, the sections have 2 numbers before them, so section 0 looks like "1 0. PREAMBLE", section 1 is "2 1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS", and so on for the whole page. What about people who have this setting on? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 03:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Mailing list and Irate

Jimbo, I see that you've blocked User:Irate indefinitely based on some comments he made on IRC. But I only found out about this on the mailing list, and I think it should be discussed on Wikipedia, preferably on WP:AN or WP:AN/I, so that the rest of us can know about it and discuss it. For example, I myself strongly disagree with your block, but if you take this process, of doing it by fiat and only talking about it on the mailing list, those of us who disagree are effectively excluded from the decision. Everyking 03:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You may start a discussion there if you like; I think it will be quite instructive. You could also discuss it here. I think such a discussion might be quite helpful to everyone to clarify the purpose of the website: is it to be a playground for belligerant, illiterate, and unapologetic users (like Irate), or a serious encyclopedia project? --Jimbo Wales 10:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That isn't a fair characterization of the matter. Nobody wants Wikipedia to be a playground for anybody. The question I was raising was one of process, whether it was done correctly or whether it should have been done only on the basis of broader input. But of course it's settled now anyway. Everyking 10:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you think was done incorrectly. Everything was by the book. There was an arbcom case, a result, an appeal, a result. There was and continues to be broad community input and support for the process. --Jimbo Wales 11:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh? You just banned him because he said something you didn't like in IRC. Everyking 23:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes he did. Irate said that he intended to disrupt wikipedia. Everyone who has had any contact with irate knows that this was no idle threat as Irate had already disrupted wikipedia. Jimbo enjoys my support for this action, and I expect the support of everyone else with the exception of Irate and yourself. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to trap me in the box of supporting Irate, but it's not going to happen. All I'm saying is that we should follow process and a permanent ban should not be done purely on the basis of an IRC conversation. I'm not even saying the IRC conversation shouldn't be admissible as evidence! That alone is pretty radical, since there's precedent that IRC and the encyclopedia should be treated as completely separate. Everyking 23:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to trap you! you daft thing! Yes IRC and Wikipedia are seperate things, and yes something like "you are a wanker" said on irc shouldn't be grounds for a ban on wikipedia. But "I will disrupt wikipedia" is a different matter. Jimbo banned a disruptive editor who threatened to disrupt again as soon as his current block expired. This is entirely within process. Jimbo has every right to ban anyone he sees fit to. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Theresa, but I'll go further and say this wasn't just a ban because "he said something I didn't like in irc" nor was it a ban of "anyone I see fit". This is part of our standard operating procedure which sets no new precedent at all.

Everyking's point would be valid if I had randomly banned an otherwise good user for misbehaving in IRC. But Irate was not misbehaving in irc, and that was not at all the point. (And, let's be honest: Everyking surely knows this and is making a silly argument anyway.) The conversation could have taken place in email, on the phone, in the wiki, wherever. The point that a user was protesting his sentence before the ArbCom by making the argument that (a) "the rules are rubbish" and (b) other people's bad behavior justified his own and (c) a clear promise to continue behaving as he always has and (d) a clear rejection of my own suggestion that he hold himself to a higher standard than the rules.

I am quite certain now that this case is going to go down in the "troll version" of the history of Wikipedia as the case where Jimbo randomly banned a perfectly good user because he said something that Jimbo didn't like in irc. Fine. But good users will not be deceived by that sort of nonsense.

Irate was very very very lucky to have been allowed here as long as he was.--Jimbo Wales 10:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think there are cases like this, or there could be, where a user makes a threat on IRC and that is followed by an encyclopedia block. I think C is the only one of your points that could warrant a block. The question is, did Irate make this promise? I mean in the sense that he said he would continue doing what got him banned before. Even in that case I think a block based on that is jumping the gun a bit, but it would be a bit more reasonable than I've previously thought it to be. Everyking 13:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of those who work forces...

Am I glad I just stumbled across you! What's the deal w/ al qaeda? It's been protected for like 9 days! Can anything be done? I know terrorism's touchy but truth seekers are getting the crappy end of this deal; I can taste it. I don't know what the exact controversy entails but I'm sure it has to do with the

goverment

and

truth.

If there's anything I can do, I got your back homey. Nice 'pedia. Salam.

Kzzl 04:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Kate Walsh (singer)

I've just arrived at the article about Kate Walsh via a random link and noticed your comment on the talk page (from 16 July that you had a photo of her you were going to upload. Did you ever get around to doing this - I can't spot any images with her name in the title here or on commons? Thryduulf 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I finally just now got around to uploading the photos to Commons. It was actually much easier than I thought it would be. Hmm, maybe I'm running out of excuses to be lazy, and I'll finally upload more. :-)--Jimbo Wales 10:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Main Page (en) edit war

Hello Mr.Wales,

There seems to be an edit (maybe revert) war over the front page (Did You Know <> Picture of the Day). Maybe you should help resolve it. --Member 00:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Arb Com appointments

Why did you appoint Jayjg rather than Mirv? Mirv was closer to being elected in the previous elections.

Jayjg was very strongly supported and recommended by the existing ArbCom members, whose judgment I trust very much. I'm sure Mirv would be a fine candidate too, but I don't know him so well. --Jimbo Wales 08:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I am also curious why you re-appointed Jdforrester, when the electorate clearly de-elected him/her ?

James is, in my opinion, one of our finest arbitrators. I know of no complaints about him as an arbitrator, and his understanding of policy and the requirements of building an encyclopedia are excellent. He's thoughtful and patient, yet firm. I feel fairly strongly that the ArbCom election process was deeply flawed, due to the negative campaigning. The position is like that of a judge, not that of a legislator, and so a deep understsanding of the law and a judicial temperament are more important than popularity. --Jimbo Wales 08:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have some of the arb com pages in {{subst:Special:Watchlist}} but I don't remember ever noticing you giving an explanation of your appointments anywhere - could you point me to it? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 12:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It was on the mailing list. But I'm happy to give further explanations here.

The fundamental job of the ArbCom is to defend the community so that we can get our work done. This is a touchy and difficult job requiring difficult judgments.--Jimbo Wales 08:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see much evidence that they are defending the community. Perhaps they imagine they are, but in practice? Their judgments are frequently unpopular, but cannot be overruled by the community. They seem to have a disconnect from the community and tend to apply punitive measures in cases where it is not necessary, often exacerbating problems. If the ArbCom is so in touch with the community, then we should allow for the possibility of a community veto, as well as petitions to oust unpopular arbs. Everyking 09:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps your view of the popularity of the ArbCom is influenced by the fact that you've been sanctioned by them for your behavior. I think if you step outside your own situation, you'll see that the main "popularity" problem the ArbCom has is that they have been, on the whole, much more patient than many people feel they should have been.

But this is really beside the point. The ArbCom really ought to feel comfortable making decisions regardless of popularity. It strikes me as particularly unwise for the decisions on user behavior to become a popularity contest. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to be a mobocracy.--Jimbo Wales 09:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I honestly cannot think of a case where the ArbCom was criticized for being soft, with the exception of Xed's case, where Snowspinner thought that he should've gotten a penalty even harsher than the already extremely harsh penalty he got. Maybe my memory is being selective. Everyking 10:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You're still an admin. I think that says a lot, personally. --Jimbo Wales 10:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's like having half your money stolen: curse your luck for being robbed, or bless your luck for leaving you with something? My personality has always tended towards the former. Nice of you to come right out and say what you think of me, anyway, Jimbo. Everyking 10:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this criticism is fair. The arbcom are a group of volunteers doing a difficult job in trying circumstances, where it's impossible to please everyone. Not only do they have to plough through all the claims and counter-claims (which are so boring sometimes, they make your head spin), they also take time to answer people's concerns about their decisions on talk pages, by e-mail, and on the mailing list, which makes them pretty accountable. Overall, they've laid down an important series of rulings, which are often referred to on article talk pages to guide decisions about content. If they can be faulted for anything, it's for erring on the side of caution and good faith, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I concur with your remarks about volunteers and difficult job etc but that does not mean that any lapse, any screw up by the ArbCom is forgiveable. By analogy a volunteer fire force which kills someone by negligence (driving too quickly through a red light, say) is still liable, volunteer or not. But the rest of what you say seems like a joke to me. What you describe is not what took place in my case. Don't jump too quickly to the conclusion that I am biased. Have a look at "Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell" - the ArbCom did not behave as you describe here, far from it. Paul Beardsell 14:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

your editings

Ser Jimbo Do you do som of you edits under an anonymous IP? .**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 23:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no. Usually if I accidentally make an edit anonymously, I log in immediately to claim the prior edit. I almost never edit the content of Wikipedia at all, other than tiny tidbits here and there.--Jimbo Wales 08:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

A lot of people have said that you use other accounts on wikipedia to do some of your edits. Is this true, false, or do you wish to respond "no comment."? DyslexicEditor 14:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's false. I haven't used another account in over a year. Before that I had another id for a short time, and made fewer than 100 edits with it. I sometimes toy with the idea of getting another account to do some minor editing here and there, because it tends to call a small ruckus when I do an edit as it is, and it would be nice to be able to sometimes do quiet editing without imply anything big and important. But by and large, I do almost no editing at all.--Jimbo Wales 14:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Unabhängige Wikipedianer - Just a hello and a statement

Hi Jimbo

I am here to say that we are group of de:Wikipedia users who do not feel represented by "Wikimedia Deutschland e.V."

Some admins of us (and with > 10.000 edits) were therefore nominated by Achim Raschka and others for re-election (and being bashed) but are still in a quite good standing.

Please be informed that we appreciate yours and Wikimedia Foundation's work to provide us an ultimate collection of knowledge and exchange of views from all cultures.

Unabhängiger Wikipedianer (de) 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Flag

Vandalism

Hello Jimbo... I've been apologizing to the users hit by my imposter R℮dwolf24. Of course Im sure your page is edited more than any other user page so you probably havent noticed it. However rest assured that wasn't me... Redwolf24 02:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

vfd I think you should see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Cyrus_Farivar

The admin Snowspinner is completely ignoring the community consensus.

I will admit my first comment was probably unnecessarily harsh, but here's the basic situation as I see it. A journalist who has written for notable publications, and who is probably unaware of our vanity policy, writes an article on himself. The article is nominated for deletion, and our badly broken deletion system generates a lot of votes that want to delete an article on a notable subject because of the circumstances of its creation, despite the fact that plenty has happened since the article's creation.

And, well, it needs to not work that way. If VfD is generating a consensus like that, VfD is broken, and it should be ignored. We don't delete articles on notable subjects because we're pissy about how they got created, and we don't bite the newcomers like that - especially not prominant newcomers who are giving Wikipedia what is basically good press. It's a shitty thing to do, and it needs to not happen. So I'm going to keep the article. Snowspinner 01:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this particular issue, but I do want to stress Snowspinner's attitude here—this is what I've been dealing with for a long time (and gotten a lot of grief for), his belief that policy is optional and can be ignored. This is not a belief that an admin should hold, and certainly, not in a million years act on it. But he does this on a daily basis. And currently I'm in front of the ArbCom for reminding him of policy during each of these daily controversies he stirs up. Everyking 05:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That does not look like consensus to delete to me. Far from it. — David Remahl 02:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

David is right. Snowspinner is right. I'm not sure what else I can say about it. --Jimbo Wales 08:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I decided that there is more that I can say about it. I just did a count myself, and found 17 Keep and 35 Delete votes. That's 67.32%. According to the deletion policy, a 2/3 majority is considered by many to be sufficient, but some feel it should be higher. It is also well within the remit of an administrator to weigh votes according to their own judgment of the reputation or credibility of the voters, and also to make a judgment on the circumstances. Therefore, quite clearly, Snowspinner is perfectly within his rights to make a judgment call that the page should be kept.

Furthermore he is _clearly right_ on the issue of notability. This is a legitimate journalist who is writing in Slate, the New York Times, etc.! Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored in a case like this. Remember, our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission.--Jimbo Wales 08:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I also made the decision a few weeks ago to reject the specific VfD decisions if they contradict wider deletion policy (I over-dramatically wrote User:Pcb21#Notice to any readers: I do not accept the results of VfD any more but should've written "I occasionally do not accept results of VfD..."). It is interesting to see that as VfD has grown, and attracted editors who devote their Wikipedia time solely to VfD, that (set of) pages has become a project of its own, detached from the wider purpose of Wikipedia. Pcb21| Pete 11:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Jimbo this guy is on the borderline at best of current Vfd demands for "notability", if you think he should be a clear "keep" you might need to get your hands dirty and help write some new guidelines and persuade people. I don't even think "comprehensive" has consensus, it seems like wikipedia is headed towards being a selective resource including only topics that will impress general users, not those specifically searching for information. Kappa 15:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples of people equally notable who were deleted? Or anyhow examples of deletions that you feel went too far? Just for my own study... --Jimbo Wales 16:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example of an odd decision to delete, in my view. Brandenn Bremmer was a child progidy in the U.S., very high IQ, allegedly started reading at 18 months, playing the piano at three, started university at 11; had been written up a few times in his local newspaper. Out of the blue, he shot and killed himself at the age of 14, apparently with no warning signs and no suicide note. The death sparked a debate about the pressures very talented children face, and it received international press coverage, including from the AP, British newspapers, [3] and (from memory) Indian newspapers, as well as major newspapers in the U.S. Yet the article has been deleted twice from Wikipedia, and was once nominated within two hours of being created, with the result that no decent article has ever gotten off the ground. Here's a link to the best version it, which is very short. [4] Here's the VfD page: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brandenn Bremmer There seems to have been voting by suspected sock puppets and anon IPs. Their argument was that they didn't believe he was talented, and this was all propaganda put out by the parents, which misses the point that we're not here to judge the truth of news stories in the mainstream press, but simply to compile what they report. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Snowspinner substituting his judgement for the result of consensus isn't that the consensus is always right or preferred or desired - the last US election pretty much proves that the majority is always wrong. The problem is what happens when some other admin decides that Snowspinner's judgement was flawed and substitutes his or her judgement for Snowspinner's, nuking the article anyway. And then some other admin... I see Snowspinner's point, but I think the proper thing to do would have been to attempt to convince people instead of just declaring a consensus of one. Kappa's the sky is falling scenario of worthy topics getting deleted left and right simply is not true. Anything of the slightest bit of worth almost always makes it through VFD unscathed. I've written dozens of small articles on obscure artists, poets, and comic strips that are probably of no interest to a "general user", and I've never had a single one deleted. Let's be honest, stuff like Cyrus Farivar is borderline at best, and it really does the project no harm either way if stuff like that stays or goes. I'd prefer have an orderly vfd that respects the community consensus and the price of losing the occassional borderline vanity article isn't really that much of a price when you can just create a better non-vanity article later. Gamaliel 18:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Community consensus" is bullshit. In the first place, the "community" is not the Wikipedia community; it is the community of people who regularly read and vote in VFD/CFD/etc. It only takes ONE person to nominate an article for VFD, for whatever reason (including malice), and then the VFD "regulars" give their snap judgement based on a cursory look and their general voting prejudices. Then an administrator counts up the votes and if 60% or so voted 'delete', it may be deleted (with no other justification). If the delete was improper, other admins generally ignore it rather than entering into a revert war which may get them kicked out of the admin club.

The ills of the VFD system - censorship, politicking, bullying, etc. - are a high price to pay for not having to tolerate a few harmless "non-notable" articles. Mirror Vax 20:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I should also mention that VFD is a big waste of time. The same people argue over and over about "Is X 'notable'?", which contributes about as much to Wikipedia as arguing whether vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream tastes better. Mirror Vax 20:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

CFD also causes problems. Let me give a concrete example. Category:Causes célèbres was an interesting, well-filled, and (as far as I know) uncontroversial category. One person didn't care for it and nominated it for deletion. This is the record:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete --Kbdank71 13:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic, POV, absence of context. zen master T 07:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - inherently arbitrary. - SimonP 00:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vague. Neutrality^talk 04:59, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Its French for "Famous Causes", I'm guessing they want the people/celebs cat'd if they have participated in noteworthy causes. Not really sure how this would work, unless each "cause" was a sub cat. <>Who?¿? 18:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vague Gorrister 11:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't like this one either. Postdlf 08:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, has no purpose --U.U. 18:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It isn't vague; it's a well known French term in common English usage which means "Famous case" (not "Famous cause"). A cause célèbre is defined in its own article. It's not arbitrary: for something to be a cause célèbre, it must be a long-running case in which the public is involved on one side or the other, preferably both, and which is an exemplar of a particular phenomenon of human society. That is what distinguishes it from merely a well-known law case. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 23:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

It's not clear if the people who voted 'delete' even knew what a "cause celebre" was (see Landmark_case#Comparison_with_cause_c.C3.A9l.C3.A8bre and Cause célèbre). There was no dialogue. There were no suggestions for improvement. Just "don't like, nuke it". None of the deleters took responsibility for re-categorizing the articles. They never were re-categorized; they were ultimately de-categorized (I forget how many articles were in the category, but it was more than 100). This sort of wanton destruction is demoralizing. Mirror Vax 01:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cases I have noticed

Jimbo you asked above for some examples of where deletion mistakes are made. Awkwardly the cases I remember are the cases I took an active interest and hence often the material is saved! But anyway from the last few days

• Romeo and Juliet in Sarajevo - 6-6 VfD, admin deleted the article. VfU said the admin decision was wrong given no consensus. Undeleted. Immediately VfDed again, where I am currently (I hope!) convincing readers of the importance of this historical event. Given how important it was at the time, this is surprisingly tough!

• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary VfD was to move the content to Wikibooks - all good so far. However the deletion decision was to expunge all mention of the article from WP. I've put a "soft" redirect to Wikibooks at the old site of the article, to save breaking links etc.

• Bottom of the pyramid - Article on a valid topic in economics. Unfortunately it was created by a newbie to Wikipedia. Nominated for deletion, the newbie unfortunately created sockpuppets in order to try to get his article kept. This got the backs up of residents of VfD who voted for deletion seemingly to aggravate the sockpuppet-creator more than on the merits of the topic. VfU upheld the VfD decision - VfU culture is to only examine the procedure of the VfD debate rather the the debate itself, so only looked at the number of voters (which did indeed, once socks were discounted, have a significant majority for deletion).

Now I guess none of these are hugely important by themselves, but I chose this selection because a) they show a variety of defiencies in the VfD process, b) on a mixture of topics and c) are all recent. 07:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh I wrote the above oblivious to the current flurry of activity regarding deletion on the mailing list and various pages around the Wikipedia: namespace. It looks right now as if we have an opportunity for change, which is difficult given the literally hundreds of interested parties, and dozens of proposals. Such is the size of this issue, there may some value in organizing a group of two or three people (I am thinking of the model of the election overseers) who help manage the process of getting all proposals considered and discussed, picking the elements people like, and managing a preference vote between viable options. Of course these people should hold no sway over what is finally chosen, they just ensure all ideas are given a fair hearing. Pcb21| Pete 10:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Votes for Deletion, the next generation

A bold idea you may want to comment on. VfD in my opinion is failing to operate properly due to overwhelming and increasing number of new cases. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Cool Cat. There are at least two RfCs against admins basically reflecting problems with the RfD procedure. Robert McClenon 23:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Counter Vandalism Unit

I don't know how much RC patroling you do, I noticed you reverting a few vandals, so here it goes... You may find my bot on irc.freenode.net #en.wikipedia.vandalism intriguing. Feel free to use/try it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I do very little, but I like to be aware of things, so I'll check it out. Thanks! --Jimbo Wales 11:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Your white list ide (irc) is nice and not hard to implement. Who could provide me such a whitelist? Also can do a blacklist. :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of administrators might not be a bad place to start. [[smoddy]] 17:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats already implemented. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This is sounding a lot like CDVF. What's the diff? -- Essjay · Talk 00:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's a central service on IRC. CryptoDerk's prog isn't bad but the alternative isn't bad either. I can list a number of pros if you really like. This bot will work on all wiki languages when I am done getting it translated. (working on de and fr looking for translators) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

No need for me; I like my CDVF. However, might not be a bad idea for the benefit of others. -- Essjay · Talk 05:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The vatican's Media Conference and the Wikipedia

Can I repeat my un-answered question? (New Media /Old Media -cleared out)

It was reported on Euronews this Spring , just prior to the death of Pope John Paul II , that a special conference was being held in the Vatican over the issue of new Media (ie the internet and presumably things like the Wikipedia . Film appeared from within the modern conference hall , there seemed to be about 150 people maximum in a hall capacity of about 600 . There were Cardinals , not many , in the front rows , noteable for their cummerbund colours around their waists . There were people in civvy clothes as well . This was their new modern confernce hall , showing their arrival into networked communication .

Euronews said that the conference was called by the Roman Catholic Church to study the new phenomenon of internet information dissemination . That the church was aware of negative information on the internet which could cause harm to the church and faith. That the church should being aware of these new tools, also see it as a positive opportunity for the faith . - Euronews quoted the conclusion reached at this conference-three days I think it lasted . It concluded that indeed there was an urgent need for Catholics of all places to enter into these new media channels to counterract all such malign influences , and for them to recognise and take active part themselves in this new media as catholics . This to the faithful , was by way of being an order for a concerted entry into cyberspace , and was presumably reported through catholic media organs at greater length than the 5 minute Euronews report . This was broadcast repeatedly several times daily for a week(they repeat info that way) .

I ask you again, in the fear that you may not have understood what I referred to , as the chief of a large media organ , if you are aware of this catholic conference's concluding instruction to the faithful ? Famekeeper 10:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware, and I can't imagine why I should care. I will gladly join with the Catholic Church and invite Catholics and people of every belief to get engaged with the Internet and New Media generally. I think that positive dialogue and discussion is a net value for everyone, and I am very pleased to hear that the Catholic Church is encouraging it.--Jimbo Wales 11:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The instruction however was to each of the faithful to personally involve themselves to the fullest to combat all encroachment on the teaching of the church . If it were positive we'd be delirious but rigidity and prevention are not at the cutting edge of positive dialogue . If Condoleeza Rice can have a Foreign Policy u-turn re :the Middle East (more democracy , less kings ), that's a positive . U-turns and recognition of the reality is positive , obedience to dogma ain't . Sino-japanese relations as of now require positive dialogue , but maybe you will be able to help (just an example ) . I can see your point . Anyway , you opened the door , and I say thanks .Famekeeper 21:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Source

Hi Jimbo. I noticed this page was updated with The Devil's Reject having used the word the most times so I updated Nil by Mouth accordingly. So I guess my source was this page but whoever updated it, I don't know where they got the source from. Thanks Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 20:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the information is not valid at all.--Jimbo Wales 22:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

blackbook of wikipedians

This page which is blacklisting fellow wikipedians doesn't really belong on the pedia .... does it? User:Witkacy/Black_Book Waerth 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

free tv listings (de)

Hi, I will test your german now... :-) Ich war positiv überrascht zu lesen, das Du auch freie TV-Listings als etwas wichtiges empfindest. Leider ist mein Vorschlag in den deutschen Wikinews auf wenig Gegenliebe gestoßen (s.a. http://de.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_Diskussion:Pl%C3%A4ne#Tv-Listings ). Ich würde da ggf. gerne bei dem Start von so einem Projekt mithelfen. Ich befasse mich ebenfalls seit Jahren mit Dingen wie Hypertext und Wikis. Mit den anderen 10 Punkten, die wichtig sind stimme ich auch überein, besonders was freie Datenformate und freie Bildung angeht.

Where in Africa will you be?

You say you'll be in 5 countries on the continent, which ones?

Happy birthday! :D

Happy birthday Jimbo! I know i'm two days early, but, my memory sucks and I would probably forget by Sunday. :D --Phroziac (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation, and who should be allowed to do it

As an important force in the creation of the ArbCom, I think you should take a look at this decision: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision#Coolcat prohibited from mediating. While the intent of the ArbCom seems to prevent someone who has no support from holding himself out as a credible mediator, there are serious worries that this is actually precedent to bar anyone who's seen as not effective at resolving disputes from doing it at all! As Kim Bruning rightly points out on the talk page, informal mediation is not something we should be discouraging. The ArbCom ought to be our last resort, and any decision the ArbCom makes that seems to reinforce the illusion of them being the "only" source of Mediation needs at least a strong clarification. If you could keep an eye out? TIA. JRM · Talk 21:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please just tell me...

Please just tell me you didn't say the things attributed to you in the Yahoo article. Freezing "stable" pages in perpetuity?! Even freezing them for a few days is incredibly staling, even for articles generally considered good. I can only assume you were grossly misquoted. Else I'd be worried. — David Remahl 21:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

While few long-time editors are freaking out over this, we'd still like an official "my statements were misrepresented" (or similar) statement that we can point people at. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad thing, as long as there are a few assumptions about how it'd work: 1) there would be an alternate, editable version of the article available, and 2) new changes could be incorporated in the "stable" version after some deliberation, so it wouldn't really be "in perpetuity". This has been on the table for a long time, I think, and I think it would be a step forward that we need to take at some point. Everyking 22:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've missed something (recent evidence would suggest I have), but isn't this called m:Wikipedia 1.0? [[smoddy]] 22:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is "Finally." Anything that reduces some of the idiocy in a lot of these articles' history is most welcome. RADICALBENDER★ 00:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I just posted this to Slashdot:

Wikipedia hereby formally announces tighter :editorial controls on Reuters and Slashdot... ;-)

I spoke in English to many journalists yesterday and :the day before (90 journalists registered to cover :Wikimania). I spoke to one journalist about our :longstanding discussions of how to create a "stable :version" or "Wikipedia 1.0". This would not involve :substantial changes to how we do our usual work, but :rather a new process for identifying our best work.

I spoke in English, and this was translated to :German. Then the German was translated back to :English, and then translated again into the Slashdot :story.

There was no "announcement". We are constantly :reviewing our policies and looking for ways to :improve, but we have not "announced" anything. We :don't even really work that way... if you know how :Wikipedia works, it's through a long process of :community discussion and consensus building, not :through a process of top-down announcements.

--Jimbo Wales 08:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rap

Jimbo,

I think that Wikipedia ought to have its own song. I wrote a "Wikipedia Rap" a while back, but nobody seemed to like it. I suggest that we have a contest to see who can write the best song for Wikipedia.

Sincerely, NapSpit2